INCOME TAX OFFICER -4(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. HAMID HUSAIN, BHOPAL

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

purchase of Rs.\n9,10,39,185.00 as bogus purchase / not genuine purchase.\n\n2. On the facts

HAMID HUSAIN,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiito-4(1), Hamid Husain, बनाम/ Bhopal 369, Kaji Camp, Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Hamid Husain, Assessment Unit, बनाम/ 369, Kaji Camp, Income Tax Department Vs. Gali No.3, Near Sindhi Colony, Berasia Road, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

purchase of Rs. 9,10,39,185.00 as bogus purchase / not genuine purchase. 2. On the facts

MATHARLAL MUNGALAL AGRAWAL,KHANDWA vs. THE ITO, KHANDWA

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchases were actually bogus-purchases. With such evidences collected by Ld. AO, he finally arrived at a strong

RAJVEER LEAF SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALDA. INDORE vs. DCIT/ACIT- 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajveer Leaf Springs Dcit/Acit-4(1), बनाम/ Private Limited, Indore Vs. D-405, Shubh City, Palda, Indore

bogus purchase u/s 69C was at Rs.4,62,63,870/-. Some of the observations of the Ld. A.O is reproduced

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchases are bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchases are bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchases are bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

purchases are bogus, i.e. no purchases are made then how can there be any sale of that

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

bogus purchases of Rs.1,94,07,890/- has escaped the assessment. Before alleging bogus purchases, Ld. A.O is certainly

PRIME CONSTRUCTIONS,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

purchases are bogus, the entire purchase amount cannot be added. As the department had not disputed the assessee

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

bogus purchase of bitumen of Rs.1,83,38,032/-. This amount was not claimed as an expenditure but was part

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned\nabove

Purchase\nBills from Bogus Suppliers and executed Sales by way of Purchasing\nMaterial from local market and thereby

KISHAN RAM VISHNOI,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are partly allowed in terms mentioned

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Purchase Bills from Bogus Suppliers and executed Sales by way of Purchasing Material from local market and thereby

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S SHUBHAM FININVEST INDIA P LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

bogus sale and purchase (Before 2010 I used to provide accommodation entry for bogus sale and purchase

THE ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S SHUBHAM FININVEST INDIA P LTD , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

bogus sale and purchase (Before 2010 I used to provide accommodation entry for bogus sale and purchase

INCME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. SWARNA SUKH, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and \"impugned order” is upheld

purchases have not been expressly held to be a bogus purchase or sham or make believe arrangement